Good answer Scott.
A sticky situation...
Discussion in 'Pastoral Ministries' started by ScottEmerson, Sep 17, 2005.
Page 2 of 5
-
-
IN short, Paul does not give even one cultural issue in this injunction. He reaches back thousands of years to creation and the fall for his teaching. Do you really think that has changed?
You see, this is not about equality of personhood. It is about God's intent and role.
-
Pastor Larry,
Is it ever okay for a woman to teach a man?
Is it ever okay for a woman to be in authority over a man?
Thanks. -
Not in the context of spiritual authority and church, according to Scripture.
-
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The context is church. Do SS classes take place in the church or not? I have no problem if you object to applying this verse to a company workplace. There, it has no bearing. But if you are involved in church, in teaching hte Scripture, it has great relevance.
Secondly, there is nothing about SS that is a violation of Scripture. Can't imagine what you were going after with that.
Click to expand...
I would say that while you make the claim to not let women teach you ignore the greater historical context of scripture regarding the body of believers. Historically males and females did not sit together. Historically men never counseled women. How many women in your church are veiled? How many times have you applied 1Cor. 14:29, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment” in a service?
The application of scripture is not always so easily “cut and dried” as some claim.
There are those who call others wrong because they make great claims to know scripture while conveniently ignoring the greater historical context. -
The point I was making is that if you are going to strictly adhere to scripture in every case, then you must also abide by its historical context. If you did that, then would not have a Sunday School nor let women sit with their husbands in church.Click to expand...
BTW, there is nothing in the Bible that forbids SS or women sitting with their husbands. There is nothing that even addresses it. You are confusing things.
I would say that while you make the claim to not let women teach you ignore the greater historical context of scripture regarding the body of believers. Historically males and females did not sit together. Historically men never counseled women. How many women in your church are veiled? How many times have you applied 1Cor. 14:29, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment” in a service?Click to expand...
The application of scripture is not always so easily “cut and dried” as some claim.Click to expand...
There are those who call others wrong because they make great claims to know scripture while conveniently ignoring the greater historical context.Click to expand...
You are conflating some issues in your mind and writing, and you are confusing others. That does not result from good exegesis. -
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
BTW, there is nothing in the Bible that forbids SS or women sitting with their husbands. There is nothing that even addresses it. You are confusing things.
The Bible never addresses every issue in society. But the scripture sits within a context that dictated other than what you seem to think. Again you forgot the historical context in which scripture lies. It was then and in many cases still the same today. It was forbidden in that culture for men to sit with women in a church context. That was unacceptable. In some of those same countries the same thing is still practiced.
The Bible does not command that women wear veils. The "headcoverings" of 1 Cor 11 are clearly a contextual issue of authority. The reasons given there in the context are first century reasons.
Every word in scripture lies within a historical context. But you have chosen to ignore some commands and adhere to others. I Cor 11:6 is full of imperatives and you throw it out as cultural.
Certainly the context of 1 Cor. lies within a culture– the church at Corinth. That culture and scripture commands for a woman to have her head covered. You have chosen to pick and choose and call it cultural. That is a choice everyone of us make. I am not so sure the hedonistic church of America has made many wise choices.
If you look at the clear reason why a woman was to have her head covered that reason has not changed.
There are those who would claim that head coverings are not tied to culture.
If you will go back not very long even American women wore head coverings in church and in society. Scripture has not changed in the past few years. Was it right then and not now? -
Here's an update...
Tonight we had our meeting. Our senior pastor spoke after the chairman of the deacons gave a quick speech on unity and the Scriptural role of the deacon. The pastor spoke for about 20 minutes, giving his understanding of the Scriptures and shared that the rest of our staff stood with them.
In spite of a few nasty attacks by two of the three deacons in question, it was clear that the majority of the deacons had no or very little problem with husbands and wives team-teaching or women offering an offertory prayer.
The deacons offered to support their pastor as the spiritual leader of the congregation, and those who opposed, while we granted them every right to understand the Scriptures the way they do (such as what Pastor Larry advocates), they could either choose to remain under the leadership of our pastor or find a church in which they could support the pastor.
Overall, this taught me a little more about church politics (which I've tried to ignore in my three-and-a-half years at this church, my first in full-time ministry), as well as taught our men about the Scriptural role of deacons in our church (as well as the limitations placed on them by our Constitution and By-laws.) I left encouraged by the strong support of our senior pastor, and ready to roll up my sleeves and continue the mission of reaching our city, state, nation, and world for Christ.
That said, I don't want any more drama for awhile. I don't care for church politics at all.
SEC -
Look,
Once you understand the cultural context the passage makes sense. In N.T. churches, they did things much the way the Jews did. The men sat in the front of the building/church with the pastor while the women sat in the back and behind what we would call a curtain. Since the churches of the day had no P.A. system, the women had trouble hearing what was being said. They had a tendency to speak out and ask questions.
When Paul told women to be quiet, it was not anything more than a cultural directive. The women of this time were obviously less learned because of the culture and the history of this time. The women were to learn from their husbands at that time. Since that which is perfect is in our hands (regardless of translation) and we do not make women sit behind curtains in the back of the auditorium, women are able to learn just as a man is able to learn. Therefore, women are spiritually qualified to teach today where they were not qualified to teach in Paul's day.
The principle of scripture emphasizes the qualification of leaders everywhere we look. If the wife or woman is spiritually qualified and knowledgable in the consideration of the pastor, then there is NO restriction on her ability to teach as something less than a Pastor or Elder. A sunday school teacher does not rise to either position.
Remember, when we view scripture as an American and not as one who was originally written to, we will be incorrect more than we are correct. -
exscentric Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Look,
Once you understand the cultural context the passage makes sense. In N.T. churches, they did things much the way the Jews did. The men sat in the front of the building/church with the pastor while the women sat in the back and behind what we would call a curtain. Since the churches of the day had no P.A. system, the women had trouble hearing what was being said. They had a tendency to speak out and ask questions.
When Paul told women to be quiet, it was not anything more than a cultural directive. The women of this time were obviously less learned because of the culture and the history of this time. The women were to learn from their husbands at that time. Since that which is perfect is in our hands (regardless of translation) and we do not make women sit behind curtains in the back of the auditorium, women are able to learn just as a man is able to learn. Therefore, women are spiritually qualified to teach today where they were not qualified to teach in Paul's day.
The principle of scripture emphasizes the qualification of leaders everywhere we look. If the wife or woman is spiritually qualified and knowledgable in the consideration of the pastor, then there is NO restriction on her ability to teach as something less than a Pastor or Elder. A sunday school teacher does not rise to either position.
Remember, when we view scripture as an American and not as one who was originally written to, we will be incorrect more than we are correct.
Glad I slept through that one :eek: -
Your home site is not user friendly,
I cannot post a comentary without signing up.
I cannot e-mail you from their 'email' selection
cause they don't give your e-mail addy.
Anway, here is what i was going to say:
----------------------
Ed Edwards here supporting you in daily prayer.
I'm praying this:
May all God's best blessings be on Scott Emerson, his
family, and his ministry. May this be granted so that
we might give all the more honor and glory unto our
blessed Lord and Savior: Messiah Jesus. Amen!
---------------------- -
Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Your home site is not user friendly,
I cannot post a comentary without signing up.
I cannot e-mail you from their 'email' selection
cause they don't give your e-mail addy.
Anway, here is what i was going to say:
----------------------
Ed Edwards here supporting you in daily prayer.
I'm praying this:
May all God's best blessings be on Scott Emerson, his
family, and his ministry. May this be granted so that
we might give all the more honor and glory unto our
blessed Lord and Savior: Messiah Jesus. Amen!
----------------------Click to expand...
SEC -
The Bible never addresses every issue in society.Click to expand...
But the scripture sits within a context that dictated other than what you seem to think.Click to expand...
Again you forgot the historical context in which scripture lies.Click to expand...
It was forbidden in that culture for men to sit with women in a church contextClick to expand...
Every word in scripture lies within a historical context.Click to expand...
But you have chosen to ignore some commands and adhere to others.Click to expand...
I Cor 11:6 is full of imperatives and you throw it out as cultural.Click to expand...
Certainly the context of 1 Cor. lies within a culture– the church at Corinth. That culture and scripture commands for a woman to have her head covered. You have chosen to pick and choose and call it cultural.Click to expand...
I am not so sure the hedonistic church of America has made many wise choices.Click to expand...
If you look at the clear reason why a woman was to have her head covered that reason has not changed.Click to expand...
There are those who would claim that head coverings are not tied to culture.Click to expand...
If you will go back not very long even American women wore head coverings in church and in society.Click to expand...
What you continue to ignore,inexplicably, is that Paul's reasons are not cultural. Paul did not give first century reasons for his mandate. He gave creation reasons. The question is this: Do the reasons Paul gave still exist? Obviously. Therefore, teh command is not cultural. -
Once you understand the cultural context the passage makes sense.Click to expand...
When Paul told women to be quiet, it was not anything more than a cultural directive.Click to expand...
Therefore, women are spiritually qualified to teach today where they were not qualified to teach in Paul's day.Click to expand...
The principle of scripture emphasizes the qualification of leaders everywhere we look. If the wife or woman is spiritually qualified and knowledgable in the consideration of the pastor, then there is NO restriction on her ability to teach as something less than a Pastor or Elder. A sunday school teacher does not rise to either position.Click to expand...
Remember, when we view scripture as an American and not as one who was originally written to, we will be incorrect more than we are correct.Click to expand...
Tell me why no one on your side has bothered to talk about Paul's reasons. -
Overall, this taught me a little more about church politics ... That said, I don't want any more drama for awhile. I don't care for church politics at all.Click to expand...
-
This was a fun one, and I missed it!
Oh well! -
So let's make this simple, Paul is refering to PUBLIC services or what we would call worship service. Since Sunday School is an American invention and is generally broken down by different criteria, and meets in seperate rooms apart from the whole, Paul could not have been referring to Sunday School. The cultural context still applies. How do you find the cultural context? Start with Josephus and move to other authors of history and you will realize that the culture of today and when scripture was written is night and day. All authors of scripture wrote within a cultural context, and if the cultural context is not considered during interpretation, the interpretation WILL be incorrect.
Was Adam formed first? Yes, but Adam rejected his God given role when he chose sin. Eve was deceived, but Adam chose his sin. What does that mean, everything when we speak of why all men are sinners and Adams potential to choose righteousness over sin.
However, we are simply speaking of women teaching in the church. Just because Adam sinned and Eve was deceived does not change the role that God created Eve for. Eve was created as Adams helper and companion. That does not mean that she takes a secondary role in the body of Christ or in the church. If a woman is qualified in the eyes of the pastor to teach in a non-public way, ie. Sunday School, then there is no scriptural command to prohibit that. Since Paul in I Timothy and I Corinthians is refering to public services of the whole congregation, Sunday School is totally permissable. -
So let's make this simple, Paul is refering to PUBLIC services or what we would call worship service.Click to expand...
Since Sunday School is an American inventionClick to expand...
and is generally broken down by different criteria, and meets in seperate rooms apart from the whole, Paul could not have been referring to Sunday School.Click to expand...
The cultural context still applies.Click to expand...
How do you find the cultural context? Start with Josephus and move to other authors of history and you will realize that the culture of today and when scripture was written is night and day.Click to expand...
All authors of scripture wrote within a cultural context, and if the cultural context is not considered during interpretation, the interpretation WILL be incorrect.Click to expand...
Was Adam formed first? Yes, but Adam rejected his God given role when he chose sin.Click to expand...
Eve was deceived, but Adam chose his sin. What does that mean, everything when we speak of why all men are sinners and Adams potential to choose righteousness over sin.Click to expand...
However, we are simply speaking of women teaching in the church.Click to expand...
Just because Adam sinned and Eve was deceived does not change the role that God created Eve for. Eve was created as Adams helper and companion.Click to expand...
That does not mean that she takes a secondary role in the body of Christ or in the church.Click to expand...
If a woman is qualified in the eyes of the pastor to teach in a non-public way, ie. Sunday School, then there is no scriptural command to prohibit that.Click to expand...
What about that command about fornication. Surely in this age when people are getting married later that command was cultural. It doesn't apply today. There is no reason to tell people they shouldn't have sex before marriage. That was a cultural thing for the first century.
I mean really ... How many Scriptural commmands are we allowed to write off?
Since Paul in I Timothy and I Corinthians is refering to public services of the whole congregation, Sunday School is totally permissable.Click to expand...
You see, your position is so weak that it takes very little thought to refute it. You have changed what Paul said, added to what Paul said, ignored what Paul said, and decided what you want to believe. That is not biblically driven obedience. You don't just get to write off the parts of Scripture that you think are out of style. -
I am not adding to scripture, I am simply reading the scriptures with proper understanding. Since you are right that the Sunday School is a British invention how can Paul be referring to anything but public worship services? As far as having any authority, the authority rests in the pastor alone and it is the pastor that decides who is qualified and who is not. If you have a church of properly decipled women and have men who only come take part of the Sunday School or Bible Study when they feel like it, how can you allow an unqualified man to teach in Sunday School? The answer, you allow the woman to teach.
Paul is addressing a situation in which women were being disruptive in the church services and creating chaos by attempting to usurp the authority of the pastor, Timothy. As far as the reasoning for why, Paul said that he would not allow a person (women) to do whatever they want and create an atmosphere where the pastor had no authority. This was a choice of Paul only "But I suffer...", he never said that this was a command to all churches for all time, this applied to the situation at hand. And the eternal principle is that no one, man or woman, is to usurp the authority of the pastor. This is why Paul gave the reasons he did in the following verses. It is an example of proper order of authority for all, not just women. Men are to also follow the chain of authority; how many times have we seen men guilty of this?
I would never condone a women in charge of the church, but if a woman is following the will of God and the leading of the pastor, authority will never be an issue. Paul's use of the creative order is to show that Adam was appointed by God to a certain role, just as the pastor is to fulfill a specific role in the LNTC. A woman is to follow the leadership of Christ just as a man is supposed to do. The role of a woman is to follow and support her pastor if she has no husband. Either way, if the pastor feels that the woman is qualified to teach then she has every right to teach. -
Paul was talking about "having authority" and "teaching." He did not limit it to "public worship services" as you do.
If you have a church of properly decipled women and have men who only come take part of the Sunday School or Bible Study when they feel like it, how can you allow an unqualified man to teach in Sunday School? The answer, you allow the woman to teach.Click to expand...
Paul is addressing a situation in which women were being disruptive in the church services and creating chaos by attempting to usurp the authority of the pastorClick to expand...
As far as the reasoning for why, Paul said that he would not allow a person (women) to do whatever they want and create an atmosphere where the pastor had no authority.Click to expand...
This was a choice of Paul only "But I suffer...",Click to expand...
And the eternal principle is that no one, man or woman, is to usurp the authority of the pastor.Click to expand...
It is an example of proper order of authority for all, not just women.Click to expand...
I would never condone a women in charge of the church,Click to expand...
but if a woman is following the will of God and the leading of the pastor, authority will never be an issue.Click to expand...
Paul's use of the creative order is to show that Adam was appointed by God to a certain role, just as the pastor is to fulfill a specific role in the LNTC. A woman is to follow the leadership of Christ just as a man is supposed to do. The role of a woman is to follow and support her pastor if she has no husband.Click to expand...
Either way, if the pastor feels that the woman is qualified to teach then she has every right to teach.Click to expand...
Page 2 of 5